The Week In Europe
By David Jessop
How should the Caribbean best present itself to the world if it is to influence key economic decisions in its favour? This was an interesting theme that surfaced in informal conversations in the margins of the fourth UK/Caribbean Ministerial Forum.
The conference, which took place in London from May 10 to 12, involved exchanges between British Ministers and Caribbean Foreign Ministers on issues as diverse as security, development, trade policy, foreign policy and HIV/AIDS.
By international standards, this biennial event is unusual. Unlike other high level meetings it is conducted in a manner that is both formal and intimate at the same time. This seemingly contradictory approach is a reflection of the still strong special relationship that remains between the Anglophone Caribbean and the UK.
For this reason the meeting worked in a manner that for the most part is lacking in high level encounters with others in the developed world. The presence of a wide range of British Ministers from different departments and their senior officials throughout the event made the Forum unusually comprehensive and joined up. As one senior Caribbean minister pointed out, the Caribbean would benefit from the United States and Canada taking a similar approach.
Despite this there was a sense in some sessions that for structural reasons relating to the need for Caricom to have and maintain a single regionally agreed position, the exchanges lacked dynamism.
Of the sessions that most came alive, those present at the Forum suggest that these were largely when Ministers on both sides moved from formality to freer flowing dialogue, or felt able to speak outside of their prepared brief. For this reason the closed lunch with the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Jack Straw, that addressed difficult political issues, a session in the UK parliament, aspects of the security debate and exchanges on matters relating to trade policy were considered to be the most productive in terms of enhancing understanding.
Despite this, there was a sense among some British and Caribbean delegates that the Caribbean may not always present itself in the best light. In this context the session on trade was particularly illuminating. This concentrated on the challenges facing the rice, sugar and banana industries but partly though the shortness of time, failed to address issues affecting the newer industries of the Caribbean: that is financial services, tourism or the needs of the service sector in international trade negotiations.
During the exchanges on trade the points was made that the region’s agriculture continues to employ large numbers in rural areas but needs time to adjust to a changed international environment. Ministers recognised that market liberalisation and falling prices will almost certainly make much of traditional Caribbean agriculture unviable. It was pointed out that the sugar industry needed to understand how and perhaps more importantly, when the review of the existing European sugar regime will be introduced. The sugar industry needed also to better understand the implications of the impact of any negative WTO ruling on the challenge brought by Brazil. A similar situation pertained in respect of bananas. The commodity had largely fallen off the European political agenda. In 2006 a flat tariff rate for all banana producers has to be in place. The level that it will be set at and how it will be introduced will determine the viability or otherwise of the Caribbean banana industry. Rice too
was under threat as a result of the restructuring of the EU market.
These were all legitimate questions rooted in a single issue. How low will the price of any commodity be forced by liberalisation and when might it be that individual nations will have to go out of sugar, bananas or rice (thankfully no Caribbean nation has all three) with consequent disastrous effects on employment and stability.
Unfortunately many of the remarks made at the Forum on these important issues failed to be prefaced by any indication of where the Caribbean is trying to reach ultimately. That is to say there was little discussion on whether the region or individual nations have clear plans on how or by when they might create value added or niche market industries, develop viable service sectors or a positive bottom line that underwrites their future. This had the effect at the Forum of creating the impression that the region is in transition to uncertainty rather than to industries such as tourism that if well integrated into any economy can be more multifunctional and employ more workers than traditional agriculture.
While the need for there to be enough time for a transition to newer industries was addressed, little was said at the London conference about what this would be used for or how the process would be managed. Limited discussion time was given to the biggest Caribbean industry of all, tourism. There was no mention of how with support from the United Kingdom and the European Union, the development of the whole service sector might be might be incentivised in a manner that responds to the pace at which older industries decline.
The problem appears to be that Ministers and officials whether they are British or Caribbean have little knowledge of the role of tourism or financial services in employment and development. Worse they have no real understanding of the contribution these industries make because few detailed economic studies have been undertaken by the industries concerned that draw clear and readily understood lines between policy and the issues that matter politically. That is to say, employment, skill levels, the spread of income across the economy or the indirect way such industries increase the sources of government revenue through for example in the case of tourism, the stimulation of manufacturing.
All of which of course is not to argue against fighting strenuously for the best possible deals for sugar, bananas and rice. Rather it is to suggest that it may be more effective to do so in a framework that makes clear the region has practical future options that it can develop over time with support from the EU and others.
The Caribbean and its interlocutors could do worse than find ways at future meetings to have at hand the research necessary to join the problems of the present to the solutions of tomorrow.
David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at [log in to unmask]
May 14th, 2004
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
